Posts

2021 FBAR Civil Penalties | IRS FBAR Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

As if they were not high enough, the US Congress has obligated the IRS to adjust FBAR civil penalties for inflation on an annual basis. In this article, I will provide a broad overview of the current FBAR penalty system and describe the current 2021 FBAR civil penalties.

2021 FBAR Civil Penalties: Overview of the FBAR Penalty System

FinCEN Form 114, the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (commonly known as “FBAR”), has always had a very complex, multi-layered system of penalties, which has grown even more complicated over the years. These penalties can be grouped into four categories: criminal, willful, non-willful and negligent.

Of course, the most dreaded penalties are FBAR criminal penalties. Not only is there a criminal fine of up to $500,000, but, in some case, a person can be sentenced to 10 years in prison for FBAR violation (and these two criminal penalties can be imposed simultaneously). Since the focus of this article is on FBAR civil penalties, I will not devote more time to the discussion of FBAR criminal penalties here.

The next category of penalties are FBAR civil penalties imposed for the willful failure to file an FBAR. These penalties are imposed per each violation – i.e. on each account per year, potentially going back six years (the FBAR statute of limitations is six years).

The third category of penalties are FBAR penalties imposed for a non-willful failure to file an FBAR or a filing of an incorrect FBAR. These penalties can be imposed on US persons who do not even know that FBAR exists.

Finally, with respect to business entities, a penalty can be imposed for a negligent failure to file an FBAR or a filing of an incorrect FBAR.

It is important to note that FBAR has its own reasonable cause exception that may be used to fight the assessment of any of the aforementioned civil penalties. Moreover, each of these penalty categories has numerous levels of penalty mitigation that a tax attorney may utilize to lower his client’s FBAR civil penalties.

2021 FBAR Civil Penalties: Penalties Prior to November 2 2015

Prior to November 2, 2015, FBAR penalties were not adjusted for inflation and stayed flat at the levels mandated by Congress. Let’s go over each category of penalties prior to inflation adjustment.

As of November 1, 2015, Willful FBAR penalties were up to $100,000 or 50% of the highest balance of an account, whichever is greater, per violation. Again, a violation meant a failure to correctly report an account in any year. Non-willful FBAR penalties were up to $10,000 per violation per year; it is far less clear what “violation” meant in this context. At that time, the IRS took a clear position that non-willful FBAR penalties are imposed on a per account basis similarly to willful penalties, but the validity of this position has been heavily compromised by recent court decisions. Finally, FBAR penalties for negligence were up to $500 per violation; if, however, there was a pattern of negligence, the negligence penalties could increase ten times up to $50,000 per violation.

2021 FBAR Civil Penalties: Inflation Adjustment

The situation changed dramatically in 2015. As a result of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (“2015 Inflation Adjustment Act”), Congress mandated federal agents to: (1) adjust the amounts of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment; and (2) make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation. The inflation adjustment applied only to civil penalties.

The “catch-up” adjustment meant a huge increase in penalties, because federal agencies were required to update all of these penalties from the time of their enactment (or the last year the Congress adjusted the penalties) through November of 2015. This meant that, in 2015, the penalties jumped to account for all accumulated multi-year inflation. The catch-up adjustment was limited to two and a half times of the original penalty.

Fortunately, the Congress adjusted FBAR penalties in 2004 and the “catch-up” adjustment did not have to go back to the 1970s. It still meant a very large (about 25%) increase in FBAR civil penalties, but it was not as dramatic as some other federal penalties.

2021 FBAR Civil Penalties: Bifurcation of FBAR Penalty System

The biggest problem with the inflation adjustment, however, was the fact that it further complicated the already dense multi-layered FBAR system of civil penalties – FBAR penalties became dependent on the timing of a violation and IRS penalty assessment. In essence, the 2015 Inflation Adjustment Act split the FBAR penalty into two distinct parts.

The first part applies to FBAR violations that occurred on or before November 2, 2015. The old pre-2015 FBAR penalties described above applies to these violations irrespective of when the IRS actually assesses the penalties for these violations. The last FBAR violations definitely eligible for the old statutory penalties are those that were made concerning 2014 FBAR which was due on June 30, 2015. The statute of limitations for the 2014 FBAR ran out on June 30, 2021.

The second part applies to all FBAR violations that occurred after November 2, 2015. For all of these violations, the exact amount of penalties will depend on the timing of the IRS penalty assessment, not when the FBAR violation actually occurred. In other words, if an FBAR violation occurred on October 15, 2017 and the IRS assessed FBAR penalties June 17, 2021, the IRS would use the inflation-adjusted FBAR penalties as of the year 2021, not October 15, 2017.

2021 FBAR Civil Penalties: Penalties Assessed On or After January 28, 2021

Now that we understand the history of FBAR penalties, we can specifically discuss the 2021 FBAR civil penalties. The first thing to understand is that we are talking about penalties assessed by the IRS on or after January 28, 2021; prior to that date, the 2020 FBAR civil penalties were still effective.

The 2021 Willful FBAR penalty imposed under 31 U.S.C. §5321(a)(5)(C)(i)(I) is $136,399 per violation. So far, for willful FBAR penalties, “violation” is applied on a “per account for each year” basis described above. Last year (i.e. penalties assessed after February 19, 2020 and before January 28, 2021), the willful penalty was $134,806.

The 2021 Non-Willful FBAR penalty imposed under 31 U.S.C. §5321(a)(5)(B) is $13,640 per violation; last year, the non-willful penalty was $13,481. The term “violation” in the context of non-willful FBAR penalties at this point has not been settled. Starting last year and culminating with the recent 11th Circuit court decision, the courts have been applying the term “violation” on a per-form (rather than per-account) basis. It other words, a taxpayer can argue that a non-willful violation of $13,481 should be applied per each delinquent FBAR rather than each account reported on an FBAR. This is of course a highly beneficial approach (for taxpayers) to FBAR penalty imposition, but it is still a struggle to get the IRS to accept this position.

The 2021 Negligence FBAR penalty imposed under 31 U.S.C. §5321(a)(6)(A) is $1,166; if there is a pattern of negligence under 31 U.S.C. §5321(a)(6)(B), then the penalty goes up to $90,743. Last year, the respective amounts were $1,146 and $89,170.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Professional Help With Your Prior FBAR Noncompliance

Sherayzen Law Office is a leader in US international tax law and FBAR compliance. We have successfully helped hundreds of clients from over seventy countries resolve their prior FBAR noncompliance concerning disclosure of their foreign bank and financial accounts. We can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

2018 FBAR Currency Conversion Rates | FBAR Tax Lawyer & Attorney

/in , /by

2018 FBAR and 2018 Form 8938 instructions both require that 2018 FBAR Currency Conversion Rates be used to report the required highest balances of foreign financial assets on these forms. In the case of 2018 Form 8938, the 2018 FBAR Currency Conversion Rates is the default choice, not an exclusive one.

The U.S. Department of Treasury  already published the 2018 FBAR Currency Conversion Rates online (they are called “Treasury’s Financial Management Service rates” or the “FMS rates”).

Since the 2018 FBAR Currency Conversion Rates are very important to US taxpayers, international tax lawyers and international tax accountants, Sherayzen Law Office provides the table below listing the official 2018 FBAR Currency Conversion Rates (note that the readers still need to refer to the official website for any updates).

Country – Currency

Foreign Currency to $1.00
AFGHANISTAN – AFGHANI

74.576
ALBANIA – LEK

107.05
ALGERIA – DINAR

117.898
ANGOLA – KWANZA

310.0000
ANTIGUA – BARBUDA – E. CARIBBEAN DOLLAR

2.7000
ARGENTINA – PESO

37.642
ARMENIA – DRAM

485.0000
AUSTRALIA – DOLLAR

1.4160
AUSTRIA – EURO

0.8720
AZERBAIJAN – NEW MANAT

1.7000
BAHAMAS – DOLLAR

1.0000
BAHRAIN – DINAR

0.3770
BANGLADESH – TAKA

84.0000
BARBADOS – DOLLAR

2.0200
BELARUS – NEW RUBLE

2.1600
BELGIUM – EURO

0.8720
BELIZE – DOLLAR

2.0000
BENIN – CFA FRANC

568.6500
BERMUDA – DOLLAR

1.0000
BOLIVIA – BOLIVIANO

6.8500
BOSNIA – MARKA

1.7060
BOTSWANA – PULA

10.6610
BRAZIL – REAL

3.8800
BRUNEI – DOLLAR

1.3610
BULGARIA – LEV

1.7070
BURKINA FASO – CFA FRANC

568.6500
BURUNDI – FRANC

1790.0000
CAMBODIA (KHMER) – RIEL

4103.0000
CAMEROON – CFA FRANC

603.8700
CANADA – DOLLAR

1.3620
CAPE VERDE – ESCUDO

94.8800
CAYMAN ISLANDS – DOLLAR

0.8200
CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC – CFA FRANC

603.8700
CHAD – CFA FRANC

603.8700
CHILE – PESO

693.0800
CHINA – RENMINBI

6.8760
COLOMBIA – PESO

3245.8000
COMOROS – FRANC

428.1400
CONGO, DEM. REP – CONGOLESE FRANC

1630.0000
COSTA RICA – COLON

603.5000
COTE D’IVOIRE – CFA FRANC

568.6500
CROATIA – KUNA

6.3100
CUBA – PESO

1.0000
CYPRUS – EURO

0.8720
CZECH REPUBLIC – KORUNA

21.9410
DENMARK – KRONE

6.5170
DJIBOUTI – FRANC

177.0000
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC – PESO

49.9400
ECUADOR – DOLARES

1.0000
EGYPT – POUND

17.8900
EL SALVADOR – DOLARES

1.0000
EQUATORIAL GUINEA – CFA FRANC

603.8700
ERITREA – NAKFA

15.0000
ESTONIA – EURO

0.8720
ETHIOPIA – BIRR

28.0400
EURO ZONE – EURO

0.8720
FIJI – DOLLAR

2.1080
FINLAND – EURO

0.8720
FRANCE – EURO

0.8720
GABON – CFA FRANC

603.8700
GAMBIA – DALASI

50.0000
GEORGIA – LARI

2.6700
GERMANY – EURO

0.8720
GHANA – CEDI

4.8250
GREECE – EURO

0.8720
GRENADA – EAST CARIBBEAN DOLLAR

2.7000
GUATEMALA – QUENTZAL

7.7150
GUINEA – FRANC

9076.0000
GUINEA BISSAU – CFA FRANC

568.6500
GUYANA – DOLLAR

215.0000
HAITI – GOURDE

77.1180
HONDURAS – LEMPIRA

25.0000
HONG KONG – DOLLAR

7.8320
HUNGARY – FORINT

280.1700
ICELAND – KRONA

116.1100
INDIA – RUPEE

69.8000
INDONESIA – RUPIAH

14440.0000
IRAN – RIAL

42000.0000
IRAQ – DINAR

1138.0000
IRELAND – EURO

0.8720
ISRAEL – SHEKEL

3.7490
ITALY – EURO

0.8720
JAMAICA – DOLLAR

126.0000
JAPAN – YEN

109.8500
JERUSALEM – SHEKEL

3.7490
JORDAN – DINAR

0.7080
KAZAKHSTAN – TENGE

375.1500
KENYA – SHILLING

101.8000
KOREA – WON

1114.4900
KOSOVO – EURO

0.8720
KUWAIT – DINAR

0.3030
KYRGYZSTAN – SOM

69.8000
LAOS – KIP

8535.0000
LATVIA – EURO

0.8720
LEBANON – POUND

1500.0000
LESOTHO – SOUTH AFRICAN RAND

14.3500
LIBERIA – DOLLAR

156.7100
LIBYA – DINAR

1.3860
LITHUANIA – EURO

0.8720
LUXEMBOURG – EURO

0.8720
MACAO – MOP

no listing
MACEDONIA FYROM – DENAR

53.5000
MADAGASCAR – ARIARY

3470.2000
MALAWI – KWACHA

733.0000
MALAYSIA – RINGGIT

4.1300
MALI – CFA FRANC

568.6500
MALTA – EURO

0.8720
MARSHALL ISLANDS – DOLLAR

1.0000
MARTINIQUE – EURO

0.8720
MAURITANIA – OUGUIYA

36.0000
MAURITIUS – RUPEE

34.1500
MEXICO – PESO

19.6540
MICRONESIA – DOLLAR

1.0000
MOLDOVA – LEU

16.9930
MONGOLIA – TUGRIK

2642.9200
MONTENEGRO – EURO

0.8720
MOROCCO – DIRHAM

9.5300
MOZAMBIQUE – METICAL

61.5300
MYANMAR – KYAT

1535.0000
NAMIBIA – DOLLAR

14.3500
NEPAL – RUPEE

111.6000
NETHERLANDS – EURO

0.8720
NETHERLANDS ANTILLES – GUILDER

1.7800
NEW ZEALAND – DOLLAR

1.4900
NICARAGUA – CORDOBA

32.3000
NIGER – CFA FRANC

568.6500
NIGERIA – NAIRA

361.0000
NORWAY – KRONE

8.6800
OMAN – RIAL

0.3850
PAKISTAN – RUPEE

138.6000
PALAU – DOLLAR

1.0000
PANAMA – BALBOA

1.0000
PAPUA NEW GUINEA – KINA

3.2840
PARAGUAY – GUARANI

5956.0000
PERU – NUEVO SOL

3.3750
PHILIPPINES – PESO

52.4900
POLAND – ZLOTY

3.7530
PORTUGAL – EURO

0.8720
QATAR – RIYAL

3.6400
ROMANIA – NEW LEU

4.0690
RUSSIA – RUBLE

69.6800
RWANDA – FRANC

890.0000
SAO TOME & PRINCIPE – NEW DOBRAS

21.5350
SAO TOME & PRINCIPE – DOBRAS

20941.0080
SAUDI ARABIA – RIYAL

3.7500
SENEGAL – CFA FRANC

568.6500
SERBIA – DINAR

103.3900
SEYCHELLES – RUPEE

13.5500
SIERRA LEONE – LEONE

8620.0000
SINGAPORE – DOLLAR

1.3610
SLOVAK REPUBLIC – EURO

0.8720
SLOVENIA – EURO

0.8720
SOLOMON ISLANDS – DOLLAR

7.7520
SOMALI – SHILLING

575.0000
SOUTH AFRICA – RAND

14.3500
SOUTH SUDANESE – POUND

153.7000
SPAIN – EURO

0.8720
SRI LANKA – RUPEE

182.6000
ST LUCIA – EC DOLLAR

2.7000
SUDAN – SUDANESE POUND

47.0000
SURINAME – GUILDER

7.5200
SWAZILAND – LILANGENI

14.3500
SWEDEN – KRONA

8.9380
SWITZERLAND – FRANC

0.9840
SYRIA – POUND

515.0000
TAIWAN – DOLLAR

30.5880
TAJIKISTAN – SOMONI

9.3500
TANZANIA – SHILLING

2295.0000
THAILAND – BAHT

32.3500
TIMOR – LESTE DILI

1.0000
TOGO – CFA FRANC

568.6500
TONGA – PA’ANGA

2.1730
TRINIDAD & TOBAGO – DOLLAR

6.7700
TUNISIA – DINAR

3.0090
TURKEY – LIRA

5.2830
TURKMENISTAN – NEW MANAT

3.4910
UGANDA – SHILLING

3705.0000
UKRAINE – HRYVNIA

27.7000
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES – DIRHAM

3.6730
UNITED KINGDOM – POUND STERLING

0.7810
URUGUAY – PESO

32.3200
UZBEKISTAN – SOM

8310.0000
VANUATU – VATU

111.6900
VENEZUELA – BOLIVAR – SOBERANO

563.9800
VENEZUELA – BOLIVAR – FUERTE

248832.0000
VIETNAM – DONG

23190.0000
WESTERN SAMOA – TALA

2.5350
YEMEN – RIAL

480.0000
ZAMBIA – NEW KWACHA

11.9000
ZIMBABWE – DOLLAR

1.0000

FBAR Legislative History | FBAR Tax Attorney Minneapolis

/0 Comments/in , /by

Exploring the FBAR legislative history is not just a theoretical adventure which should interest only legal scholars. Rather, the FBAR legislative history allows us to understand the theoretical and historical basis for the high FBAR penalties and the legal arguments that may serve best to combat the imposition of these severe penalties.

FBAR Legislative History: The Bank Records and Foreign Transactions Act and the Bank Secrecy Act

The obligation to file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) originated from the Bank Records and Foreign Transactions Act, which, together with subsequent amendments, is commonly known as the Bank Secrecy Act.

The Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) was first enacted in 1970. The BSA created various financial reporting obligations to identify and collect evidence against money laundering, tax evasion and other criminal activities. One of these reporting obligations is U.S. Code Title 31, Section 5314 which directly discusses what became known as the FBAR.

31 U.S.C. §5314 requires a U.S. person to file reports and keep records regarding this person’s foreign financial accounts maintained with a foreign financial institution: “the Secretary of the Treasury shall require a resident or citizen of the United States or a person in, and doing business in, the United States, to keep records, file reports, or keep records and file reports, when the resident, citizen, or person makes a transaction or maintains a relation for any person with a foreign financial agency.” The statute identifies the basic information required to be reported on FBAR and authorizes the U.S. Department of Treasury to prescribe the requirements, including identifying the classes of persons who should file FBARs and the threshold amount triggering this reporting requirement.

FBAR Legislative History Prior to 2001

Prior to 2001, the FBAR legislative history does not reflect any major changes. In fact, the most important development in the FBAR legislative history prior to 2001 came not from Congress, but from the United States Supreme Court.

Prior to 2001, the BSA required that, in order to impose civil and criminal FBAR penalties, the U.S. government had to prove willful failure to file an FBAR. Here is where the Supreme Court made its decisive contribution in Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 149 (1994). In that case, the Court established the willfulness standard as a “voluntary, international violation of a known legal duty”. The Court further held that merely structuring a transaction to avoid the applicability of the BSA did not constitute willfulness.

In other words, after 1994, the DOJ (the U.S. department of Justice) had to show that the defendant structured the transactions with knowledge that such structuring was in itself unlawful. Such a high standard was difficult to satisfy and the FBAR-related indictments became relatively rare.

FBAR Legislative History After 2001

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, resulted in significant changes in the FBAR legislative history which propelled the FBAR to its current prominence. Let’s focus on three such changes.

1. USA PATRIOT Act

The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (“USA PATRIOT Act”) charged the U.S. Treasury Department with improving FBAR enforcement, particularly with respect to illegal offshore banking activities. The USA PATRIOT Act reflected the Congress’s findings that terrorist funding was successfully concealed through offshore banking activities which provided secrecy and anonymity of the parties involved. It is worth noting that the focus of the USA PATRIOT Act was still on the money-laundering and terrorist activities, not tax enforcement.

The USA PATRIOT Act further required the Treasury Department to submit recommendations to improve FBAR policies and procedures.

2. Treasury Reports and the Delegation of FBAR Enforcement to the IRS

In response to the Congress’ request, the Treasury Department released three reports between 2002 and 2004. The importance of these reports lies in the evolution of the FBAR role from the original purpose of fighting terrorism to international tax compliance.

The first report was released in 2002 complained that, due to the small probability of imposition of civil penalties and limited FBAR filing guidance, compliance with the FBAR was lower than 20% (in retrospect, this was still a very generous assessment because FBAR compliance was, in reality, much lower). Therefore, the Treasury Department outlined a number of objectives to improve FBAR policies and procedures, such as improving forms, enhancing outreach and strengthening enforcement.

Most importantly, for the first time, the Treasury Department suggested delegating the enforcement of civil FBAR penalties from FinCEN to the IRS. While nothing yet expressly suggested in the FBAR legislative history that FBAR should be used for tax enforcement, it is difficult to interpret the Treasury Department’s report in any other way. At the very least, the first report hinted at such a possibility.

The second report issued by the Treasury Department (in 2003) was much more direct. The report noted that the civil enforcement of FBAR was already delegated to the IRS and contained the key statement: “one could argue the FBAR is directed more towards tax evasion, as opposed to money laundering or other financial crimes, that lie at the core mission of FinCEN”. This was the first time the IRS officially stated the true purpose of FBAR in the post-9/11 world.

It is worth noting that the final report of the Treasury Department (issued in 2004) happily related to the Congress that the FBAR filings had increased in 2003 by 17% from the year 2000 as a result of the IRS enforcement action, confirming the correctness of the Department’s original objectives stated in the first report.

3. American Jobs Creation Act of 2004

No summary of the post-2001 FBAR legislative history would be complete without discussion of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (“2004 Jobs Act”). The 2004 Jobs Act was enacted partially as a result of the Treasury Department’s reports and its complaints about the difficulty of imposing civil sanctions for a failure to file FBAR and partially seeking an increase revenue. As a result of the 2004 Jobs Act, the Congress made one of the most important changes to FBAR by significantly increasing the FBAR penalties, including the imposition of a non-willful penalty for up to $10,000 per violation.

FBAR Legislative History: New FBAR Deadline Starting 2016 FBAR

The most recent change in the FBAR Legislative History came from the innocently-sounding “The Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice Improvement Act of 2015″ that was enacted on July 31, 2015. As a result of this new law, starting with the 2016 FBAR, the FBAR deadline moved from June 30 to April 15 (with an extension possible for the first time in the FBAR legislative history).

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for FBAR Legal and Tax Help

If you have not complied with the FBAR requirement in the past or you need to determine whether FBAR applies in your situation, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help. We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world with their FBAR compliance and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Usefulness of FBARs for the IRS and DOJ | International Tax Law Firm

/0 Comments/in , /by

The usefulness of FBARs for the U.S. tax enforcement agencies may seem to be an odd issue, but, in reality, it concerns every taxpayer with foreign bank and financial accounts. Why the FBAR is important and how the IRS and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) utilize it in their prosecution tactics is the subject of this essay.

Two Periods of the Usefulness of FBARs

In describing the usefulness of FBARs, one can distinguish two distinct periods of time. The first period lasted from the time FBAR came into existence in the 1970s through most of the year 2001. It is definitely a simplification to place this entire period of time into one category, but this simplification is intentional in order to contrast this first period of usefulness of FBARs with the second one.

The second period commenced right after the FBAR enforcement function was turned over to the IRS in 2001 and it continues through the present time. In this period of time, the usefulness of FBARs was expanded to a completely different level. It is important to point out, however, that it has not lost its original usefulness that dominated the first period of time of its existence.

Usefulness of FBARs Prior to 2001

Prior to 2001, the main purpose of FBAR had been the enforcement leverage in prosecution of financial crimes. This leverage came from the draconian FBAR penalties which often would offer a worse outcome than the statute associated with a criminal activity (especially after a plea deal). Moreover, it was much easier for prosecutors to establish an FBAR violation (any failure to report a foreign account on the FBAR would do) than to prove specific criminal activity.

The usage of FBAR prosecutions was particularly useful in money laundering cases where it was difficult to prove specified unlawful activities and certain criminal tax cases where it was difficult to establish the receipt of illicit income. In such criminal cases, instead of charging criminals solely with tax evasion or money laundering activities, the prosecutors would opt for charging the criminals with a (willful and/or criminal) failure to file an FBAR that occurred while the defendants engaged in a criminal activity. It was easier to get a plea deal this way, because, obviously, criminals would not report the foreign accounts used in a criminal activity on FBARs.

Why was the usefulness of FBARs limited to being an enforcement leverage; in other words, why were FBARs not used for collection of data? After all, FBAR was born out of the Bank Secrecy Act and its stated purpose was to collect data with respect to foreign bank and financial accounts owed by US persons.

The answer is fairly simple – there was no third-party verification mechanism for the data submitted on FBARs. In other words, the FBAR reporting was completely dependent on honest self-reporting (in fact, this is one of the reasons for the creation of FATCA) and, unless, an investigation was conducted with respect to a specific individual, there was no direct way for FinCEN to corroborate the information submitted on FBARs.

It is important to emphasize that, in this first period of its existence, the usefulness of FBARs was primarily non-tax in nature. It was not until after September 11, 2001, that FBAR commenced to acquire a new level of usefulness with which we are familiar today.

Usefulness of FBARs After 2001

The usefulness of FBARs underwent a tremendous change after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States. Soon after the 9/11 attacks, the enforcement of FBARs was taken away from FinCEN and given to the IRS.

The IRS decided to shift the scope of the usefulness of FBARs from financial crimes to tax evasion. The Congress wholeheartedly agreed and further expanded the already-severe FBAR penalties in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 to their current draconian state. From that point on, FBAR became the top international tax compliance enforcement mechanism for the IRS.

The potential FBAR penalties were so extreme that even non-willful taxpayers preferred to enter the IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (and, later, Streamlined Compliance Procedures) and pay the appropriate Offshore Penalties rather than to directly confront the potential consequences of FBAR noncompliance. In other words, the usefulness of FBARs expanded further to indirect tax enforcement.

Furthermore, the UBS case victory in 2008 and the enaction of FATCA in 2010 meant that the IRS could now obtain FBAR-required information from third parties (foreign financial institutions) and verify a taxpayer’s compliance with the FBAR requirements. This further reinforced the FBARs already dominant position in US international tax compliance.

This FBARs dominance in the tax enforcement with respect to foreign accounts continues even today despite the appearance of a rival – Form 8938 (born out of FATCA). While Form 8938 has a broader scope of reportable assets, its penalty structure is highly inferior to the terrifying FBAR penalties.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help with FBAR Compliance

If you have foreign bank and financial accounts that were not disclosed on FBARs as required, you should contact Sherayzen Law Office, Ltd. as soon as possible. Sherayzen Law Office is an experienced international tax law firm that has helped hundreds of US taxpayers with their delinquent FBARs, and we can help you!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!